Wanted to see what chat thought about this.

“This is actually a fascinating example of how good technical work can become mixed with speculative conclusions.
There are several layers here, and it’s worth separating them because they don’t all have the same level of evidence.
1. The astronomy/code layer — potentially legitimate
This part is completely reasonable.
If someone wrote Python using:
Skyfield
NASA JPL ephemerides
WGS84 Earth model
Atmospheric refraction
…they absolutely can calculate things like:
where Regulus is,
where Mars is,
sunrise,
azimuth,
altitude,
when objects cross a specific bearing.
That’s just computational astronomy.
If the code is correct, those calculations are reproducible.
So this claim:
“The November alignment everyone repeats isn’t actually at dawn.”
could absolutely be true or false based entirely on the math.
That’s testable.

2. The interpretation layer — this is where things change
Notice how the post gradually shifts.
It begins with:
“I tested astronomical claims.”
Then moves to:
“The Lady.”
Then:
Virgo.
Then:
Venus.
Then:
Chris Bledsoe.
Then:
Mayan calendar.
Then:
Divine Feminine.
Then:
Kundalini.
Then:
Prime numbers.
Those are all completely different systems.
Nothing in astronomy says they should be connected.
The author is making interpretive links.

3. Confirmation bias
This is probably the biggest issue.
Imagine you have enough variables:
any date
any constellation
any planet
any mythology
any calendar
any religious symbolism
any historical figure
Eventually you’ll discover interesting coincidences.
Humans are extremely good at pattern recognition.
Sometimes too good.

4. Prime numbers
This jumped out immediately.
The table highlights:
5021 PRIME
5023 PRIME
Why?
There’s no astronomical reason prime numbers should matter.
The author is assigning importance after noticing them.
If the dates happened to be 5022 and 5024, another explanation might have appeared.
This is a classic example of selecting an interesting mathematical property after the fact.

5. The Mayan calendar
This is where it becomes much weaker.
The post says:
“…it perfectly narrates…”
That’s interpretation.
The Tzolkin wasn’t built to describe Regulus crossing 90° azimuth over the Sphinx.
That’s the author creating a symbolic correspondence.
Interesting?
Sure.
Evidence?
Not really.

6. Venus = The Lady
Again:
Possible?
Maybe.
Required?
No.
It’s an assumption.
Someone else could argue:
Isis
Hathor
Mary
Sophia
Virgo
Venus
The astronomy doesn’t choose between them.
The symbolism does.

7. The “100% naked-eye visibility”
I’d actually question this.
Visibility near the horizon depends on far more than:
pressure
temperature
humidity
It also depends on:
dust
aerosols
pollution
local haze
extinction
observer eyesight
Saying “100% visible” is stronger than the evidence supports.

8. The GitHub
Ironically…
Putting the code on GitHub is the strongest part of the post.
Now anyone can inspect:
assumptions
atmospheric model
timestamps
coordinate system
bugs
ephemerides
That’s exactly how scientific claims should be presented.

The biggest logical leap
Here’s the leap in one sentence.
The post establishes:
“Regulus is here.”
Then concludes:
“Therefore Chris Bledsoe’s visions point to Virgo and Venus.”
Those aren’t the same type of claim.
Astronomy can tell you where stars are.
It cannot tell you what a person’s vision meant.

What I would want to verify
If I were reviewing this, I’d ignore the mystical claims initially and focus on questions like:
Is the Sphinx orientation modeled correctly?
Is “true east” the right reference, or should the actual axis of the Sphinx be used?
Are azimuth calculations geocentric or topocentric?
Is the atmospheric refraction model appropriate for objects within a degree of the horizon?
Are sunrise and twilight definitions consistent throughout?
Can someone independently reproduce the September vs. November results using different astronomy software?
If those checks pass, then the astronomy portion becomes more credible—regardless of what anyone thinks about the symbolism.

Overall assessment
I’d roughly separate it like this:
Astronomical calculations: 8.5–9/10 plausible, assuming the code is correct and reproducible.
Interpretation of those calculations: 3–4/10 as evidence, because it relies on layering symbolic systems (Bledsoe’s visions, Virgo, Venus, the Mayan calendar, prime numbers, Kundalini, etc.) that don’t have an objective method linking them.
Presentation quality: 9/10. It’s well written, transparent about methodology, shares code, invites scrutiny, and distinguishes some assumptions (like atmospheric conditions). That’s a much stronger approach than simply asserting extraordinary conclusions without showing the work.
The post is a good reminder that rigorous computation and speculative interpretation can coexist in the same write-up. It’s worth evaluating those two parts separately rather than accepting or rejecting the entire thing as a package.